Sixty-four subjects served in a 50-min auditory monitoring task. Task complexity was examined with regard to both signal and response demands in an effort to determine variance contributing to each of these variables. Signals were presented at a mean rate of one per min, and no intersignal interval was greater than 2 min. Results showed that signal demands were of greater importance in affecting performance than were post-detection response contingencies. Statistically significant differences were obtained between groups monitoring only one signal and those monitoring any of seven signals, with the former condition exhibiting better performance over time. Groups in which signals were left unspecified exhibited lower detection percentages and higher false alarm rates than conditions in which signals were specified. No statistical differences between simple and complex response conditions were observed. Application of the present findings to applied environments is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A.BoulterL. R.Spatial and temporal uncertainty as determinants of vigilance behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 67, 127–131.
2.
AlluisiE. A.HallT. J.Declines in auditory vigilance during periods of high multiple-task activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 739–740.
3.
BellR.SymingtonL.BevanW.Watchkeeping performance as a function of certain properties of the viewing situation. Human Factors, 1974, 16, 65–69.
4.
BergumB. O.LehrD. J.End spurt in vigilance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 383–385.
5.
BroadbentD. E.Perception and communication.New York: Pergamon Press, 1958.
6.
BrownD. W.The effect of observer redundancy on display monitoring equipment. Journal of Psychology, 1963, 56, 413–419.
7.
BrownK. W.FoxG. H.The effect of observer redundancy and task difficulty on display monitoring efficiency. Journal of Psychology, 1965, 59, 267–274.
8.
BucknerD. N.McGrathJ. J. (Ed.) Vigilance: A symposium.New York: McGraw Hill, 1963.
9.
ChapanisA.The relevance of laboratory studies to practical situations. Ergonomics, 1967, 10, 557–577.
10.
ChildsJ. M.HalcombC. G.Effects of noise and response complexity upon vigilance performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1972, 35, 735–741.
11.
ColquhounW. P.Vigilance and the inspection problem. Nature, 1957, 180. 1331–1332.
12.
ConradR.Some effects on performance of changes in perceptual load. Journal of Experimental Psychology.1955, 49, 313–322.
13.
DaviesD. R.TuneG. S.Human vigilance performance.New York: American Elsevier, 1969.
14.
DeutschJ. A.DeutschD.Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 1963. 70, 80–90.
15.
ElliottE.Perception and alertness. Ergonomics, 1960, 3, 357–364.
16.
FraserD. C.The relation of an environmental variable to performance in a prolonged visual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 5, 31–32.
17.
GoldsteinI. L.JohnstonW. A.HowellW. C.Complex vigilance: Relevant and irrelevant signals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53, 45–48.
18.
GouldJ. D.SchafferA.Visual monitoring of multichannel displays. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics.1966, HFE-7, 69–76.
19.
GouldJ. D.SchafferA.The effects of divided attention on visual monitoring of multi-channel displays. Human Factors, 1967, 9, 191–202.
20.
HarrisD. H.Effect of equipment complexity on inspection performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 236–237.
21.
HarrisD. H.The nature of industrial inspection. Human Factors, 1969, 11, 139–148.
22.
HawkesG. R.MeighanT. W.AlluisiE. A.Vigilance in complex task situations. Journal of Psychology, 1964, 58, 223–236.
23.
JerisonH.J.PickettR.M.Vigilance: A review and re-evaluation. Human Factors, 1963, 5, 211–238.
24.
JerisonH. J.WallisR. A.Experiments on vigilance: One-clock and three-clock monitoring. Technical Report 57 206. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, April 1957.
25.
KennedyR.A comparison of performance on visual and auditory monitoring tasks. Human Factors, 1971, 13, 93–97.
26.
KiddJ. S.MicocciA.Maintenance of vigilance in an auditory monitoring task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48, 13–15.
27.
KirkR. E.Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences.Belmont, Calif.: Brooks-Cole, 1968.
28.
KomakiJ.Signal-source switching in human vigilance. Japanese Psychological Research, 1967, 9, 49–59.
29.
MackworthN. H.Researches on the measurement of human performance. Special Report No. 268. London: Medical Research Council, 1950.
30.
MontyR. A.Effects of post-detection response complexity on subsequent monitoring behavior. Human Factors, 1962, 4, 201–207.
31.
SmithR. L.LucacciniL. F.Vigilance research: Its application to industrial problems. Human Factors.1969, 11, 149–156.
32.
TicknerA.PoultonE.CopemanA.SimmondsD.Monitoring 16 television screens showing little movement. Ergonomics, 1972, 15, 279–291.
33.
TreismanA. M.Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in selective attention. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1964, 3, 449–459.
34.
WareJ. R.Effects of intelligence on signal detection in visual and auditory monitoring. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1961, 13, 99–102.
35.
WareJ. R.SipowiczR. R.BakerR. A.Auditory vigilance in repeated sessions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1961, 13, 127–129.
36.
WienerE. L.PoockG. K.SteeleM.Effect of timesharing on monitoring performance: Simple mental arithmetic as a loading task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 19, 435–440.
